Clegg now has a pivotal role in the press’s future

The Lib-Dem leader is keen to redress wrongs done to his party by newspapers but risks being labelled ‘illiberal’

Friday 30 November 2012 13:07 BST

The British Establishment and the centre-Left have found common cause. They have long shared a visceral loathing for the most unruly parts of the written press. In Lord Justice Leveson’s report they have finally given it expression. In so doing they have presented this government of the centre-Right with an acute dilemma. It is one that David Cameron and Nick Clegg are struggling to reconcile.

For each party leader, principle is laced with the usual dose of political cunning. The Prime Minister will see his exoneration by Leveson, and that of Jeremy Hunt, then Culture Secretary, as a “get out of jail free” card. The pun, when it comes to Dave’s Chipping Norton set, is intentional. Leveson’s largesse towards individual culpability provides Cameron with licence to get back onto chummy terms with those proprietors and editors he thinks he needs.

For Ed Miliband, Leveson is manna from heaven. Even if he doesn’t get his way, he will be able to present himself to voters as the man who took on Murdoch — and almost won. He will not mind accusations of “statism”. After dabbling in civil liberties at the start of his term as opposition leader, Miliband has allowed his party to move back into the hardline disciplinarian camp. It is in its comfort zone, following the lead of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and John Reid.

Clegg’s is the most curious and intriguing position. The Deputy PM has for some time understood the need to seek “definition” from Cameron — although he shies away from using that word in public. He and I have discussed the idea of him using the term as they do in coalitions elsewhere in Europe: “I believe ‘a’, he argues for ‘b’, we have settled on ‘c’.” In other words, it is a sign of a mature business partnership that you can respectfully but robustly disagree on specific issues. Such differences are not deal breakers or coalition busters.

While there have been unseemly occasional spats, such as on reforming the Lords, Clegg has been wary of adopting this strategy — until now. As an aide puts it: “It’s useful for the public to see how the sausage machine works, to see how decisions are eventually come to by two quite separate parties, rather than doing everything in secret.” As a bonus it would have provided wry satisfaction for Clegg to watch Cameron sitting alongside him at the Dispatch Box, lips pursed. The Lib-Dem leader has done that enough.

By breaking with precedent and making his own statement; by placing himself closer to Miliband than to Cameron in his response, Clegg also potentially achieves another goal. Relations between the Lib-Dem and Labour leaders have been unnecessarily fractious. There is no reason why the two parties, even if sitting on opposite parliamentary benches, cannot work together on specific issues. It might come in handy after 2015. Who knows what electoral arithmetic the next general election will produce? For all his difficulties (not least continued poor polls and by-election results, such as last night’s), Clegg finds himself in a pivotal role on this issue.

The danger, of which he is aware, is this: do you resort to potentially illiberal measures to achieve a more “liberal” outcome. Lib-Dems share with Labour the grievance that they have never had a fair hearing in newspapers such as the Daily Mail and the Sun. They hope that by clipping the wings of the more prurient end of the press, they may help produce a public discourse that is less vindictive and more tolerant.

One of the characteristics of the written press in this country is that it is rowdy and raucous. It is deliberately disrespectful of figures of authority. British journalists, unlike Americans, do not stand up when their prime minister or president walks into the room. For all his claims to the contrary, that is a culture Leveson would love us to adopt. The report’s toughest language is reserved for journalists. When it comes to the incestuous links between Westminster and Fleet Street, his criticism of politicians is muted. Hunt’s rap on the knuckles falls squarely into the tradition of “Establishment defends its own”. The words “whitewash” and “inquiry” have a long history. Think of Widgery and Bloody Sunday, Hutton and Iraq.

As for police behaviour, the judge’s indulgence is mind-boggling. Of course there was no institutional corruption — perish the thought — simply human error. Yet if law enforcement had done its job, most of the worst behaviour of the press would have been dealt with at the time. They didn’t take on the journalists because they didn’t want to antagonise the bosses. Some are speculating that Leveson might have gone soft on Cameron and the police chiefs, hoping that in so doing he might gain more traction for his proposals.

Still, as work begins on drafting legislation, there is much in his report that merits serious consideration. One of the most interesting ideas is that the notion of a free press be enshrined in law. On one level this might seem crass. Some of the worst abusers have similar statutes. Lurking here is a political opportunity for someone to take. Far from being a free-for-all for the “feral beasts”, the UK has some of the most restrictive legislation against free expression. Our libel laws genuflect towards the rich and famous. They are in the process of being reformed, but the legislation is not nearly as strong as it should be. Throw in Theresa May’s horrific “snoopers’ charter”, the Communications Data bill, add in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, contempt of court, Official Secrets and a new-found tendency of the police to arrest people for “offensive” tweets, and a different picture emerges.

The rights of journalists are of secondary importance. One of the weaknesses of the current Press Complaints Commission is that it resembles an editors’ club. What matters is the public’s right to know. Once the points scoring has settled down, the outlines of a broad agreement could emerge: police and politicians who don’t seek to ingratiate themselves with media moguls; an independent self-regulator in which serving editors have no place (but which does not necessarily have to be underpinned by legislation), and a media-law culture in which the public interest is paramount. Step forward the party leader able to deliver what is really needed — a fearless press in hock to nobody.